Title
Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. vs. Central Colleges of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 180631-33
Decision Date
Feb 22, 2012
CCP contracted DPCC for a building project; delays led to termination. PCIC, as surety, held liable for bonds after DPCC defaulted. Counterclaim denied due to lack of evidence. SC upheld CCP's termination rights, modified bond liability.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 239315)

Facts:

  • Contractual Agreement and Project Execution
    • On May 16, 2000, Central Colleges of the Philippines (CCP), an educational institution, entered into a contract with Dynamic Planners and Construction Corporation (DPCC) to construct a five-storey school building at No. 39 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City.
    • The total contract price was P248,000,000.00, split into two phases of P124,000,000.00 each.
    • To guarantee DPCC's fulfillment of obligations, three bonds were issued by the Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC):
      • Surety Bond No. PCIC-45542 (P7,031,460.74) dated June 25, 2003;
      • Performance Bond No. PCIC-45541 (initially P2,929,775.31, increased to P6,199,999.99);
      • Performance Bond No. PCIC-46172 (P692,890.74).
    • All bonds were callable on demand and set to expire on October 30, 2003.
  • Project Progress and Breach Notifications
    • Phase 1 was completed without issue.
    • CCP paid DPCC P14,880,000.00 as a downpayment for Phase 2 on March 14, 2002.
    • Phase 2 experienced significant delays; a July 25, 2003 audit showed only 47% completion.
    • CCP sent a written notice on October 29, 2003, to DPCC and PCIC about the breach and intention to claim on the bonds.
    • On November 6, 2003, CCP declared DPCC in default after only 51% completion and requested PCIC to remit bond proceeds.
    • DPCC requested an extension of the bonds on November 14, 2003.
    • CCP notified PCIC on November 21, 2003, formally terminating the contract due to DPCC’s failure to complete the work on time.
  • Subsequent Developments and Arbitration
    • On December 5, 2003, PCIC approved DPCC's request to extend the bonds.
    • Negotiations to continue construction between CCP and DPCC failed; CCP hired another contractor.
    • On August 13, 2004, CCP demanded payment of P13,924,351.47 from PCIC as indicated in the bonds; PCIC denied the claims on August 20, 2004.
    • CCP filed a complaint with a request for arbitration before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on October 28, 2004 against DPCC and PCIC.
  • CIAC Decision
    • CIAC ruled in favor of CCP, holding DPCC liable for breach and awarding CCP:
      • P7,031,460.74 under the Surety Bond representing the unrecouped downpayment;
      • P6,892,890.73 under the Performance Bonds;
      • Total award of P13,924,351.47 with legal interest.
    • CCP was ordered to pay DPCC P4,232,264.12 for materials and equipment left at the site.
    • The net amount DPCC owed CCP was P9,692,087.37 with interest; PCIC was jointly and severally liable with DPCC for this amount.
    • CIAC denied claims for moral, exemplary, temperate damages, and attorney’s fees.
  • Court of Appeals (CA) Review
    • The CA, on June 29, 2007, modified the CIAC decision by:
      • Affirming CCP’s right to terminate the contract due to DPCC’s inexcusable delay;
      • Deleting the award of costs for materials and equipment left at the site for lack of proof;
      • Holding that CCP, not PCIC, was entitled to credit for the deducted materials and equipment.
    • The CA maintained joint and several liability of DPCC and PCIC for the total amount of P13,924,351.47, with interest rates specified.
    • PCIC’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 19, 2007.
  • Issues Raised by PCIC in the Petition
    • Liability of PCIC under the performance bonds and surety bond.
    • Lawfulness of CCP’s termination of the contract with DPCC.
    • Deletion of DPCC’s counterclaim on materials and equipment costs and PCIC’s inability to benefit from the counterclaim.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in sustaining PCIC’s liability under the performance bonds and surety bond.
  • Whether the CA erred in upholding CCP’s lawful and justifiable termination of the contract agreement with DPCC.
  • Whether the CA erred in deleting DPCC’s counterclaim for materials, equipment, formworks, and scaffolding left at the site and in denying PCIC the benefit of such counterclaim.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.